Standing Committee F

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Drugs Bill

Roger Gale: Good morning. The relevant documentation is in the Room and the usual restrictions apply to starred amendments.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
 That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Drugs Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.10 a.m. on Thursday 27th January) meet— 
at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 27th January; 
at 9.10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 1st February and Thursday 3rd February; 
 (2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.55 p.m. on Thursday 3rd February. 
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I hope that we can make good progress in our consideration of the Bill in Committee.

Cheryl Gillan: I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I, too, hope that we can made good progress. The Bill is comparatively small; there are only 24 clauses.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, jackets may be removed. My co-Chairman will speak for himself.

Alistair Carmichael: I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. Like the Minister and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I hope that we can make good progress.
Question put and agreed to.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a ways and means resolution and a ways and means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available in the Room. I remind members that adequate notice should be given of any amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - Aggravated supply of controlled drug

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out '18' and insert 'criminal responsibility'.
No. 30, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
'(c) the offender intended to supply controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.'. 
No. 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, after 'time', insert 
'or involved the supply of controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.'. 
No. 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

Alistair Carmichael: Amendment No. 9 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). With it have been grouped amendments Nos. 17 and 10, and Conservative amendments Nos. 28 and 30, which largely deal with the same matters. I will leave others to speak to them, although in the interests of expeditiousness, I may make brief reference to them.
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together, because, although they are different, essentially they strike at the same point. They are intended as probing amendments but, as always, I reserve the right to change my view on whether they are probing amendments depending on the attitude that the Minister exhibits. 
As I may have said on Second Reading, I was struck by the fact that the Government have chosen to make the aggravation apply to offenders of 18 years or over. Exactly what was the reason for that? It leaves open an age gap of those aged 16 to 18, who may be the likeliest to be guilty of acting in this aggravated manner. A 16-year-old might be more likely to be a dealer because they would have left school more recently. They would have contacts in the school and would know who to go to, who would pass on the drugs, who would be the couriers and where they would be least likely to come to the attention of the school authorities. However, it seems to me that they will not be covered by the Bill, although I am always willing to be put right. 
The second age-related amendment is amendment No. 10. It seeks to change the limit set for the age of the courier, which is presently under 18. On mature reflection, I suspect that it would not be wise to change that, because there is an argument for saying that keeping the limit at 18 would cover all those in the school under the scope of the Bill. That said, I am interested to know what the Government's thinking was when they set the age at 18. It is slightly unhelpful to set such age barriers, because age may not necessarily be the best way to define those who will be covered by the Bill. 
Amendment No. 28 would change the age of those covered by the Bill to the age of ''criminal responsibility'', which would have the same effect as removing any question of age at all. It would mean that the Bill would apply to any transaction involving people of the age of criminal responsibility, which would be just about anyone. That would substantially extend the scope of the provisions. I would be cautious about proceeding in that way. The approach taken by the Government to ensure that there will not be an  element of compulsion on the basis of the age of those involved in these dealing relationships has something to recommend it. However, at the same time, there are these arbitrary cut-off points, at 16 or 18 or whatever it will be that is necessarily desirable. 
Amendment No. 17 extends the terms of subsection (3), so that it would read 
''the first condition is that the offence was committed in the vicinity of a school at the relevant time'', 
and would then go on to read 
''or involved the supply of controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16.'' 
The purpose in bringing the amendment before the Committee is again to probe the Minister and to clarify the aggravation. I fully accept that it would extend the scope of the aggravation fairly significantly, but I suggest it is also significant, in that it is in tune with the themes that the Government are using in introducing the clause. Surely, the reason for having an aggravation provision is to protect young people. They are in as much need of protection while at a youth club, or outside a burger bar, or in any place where they might happen to be at any given time, as they are when in school. For that reason, it seemed to me that simply to narrow the scope of applying the aggravation provision is not particularly useful. We miss an opportunity if we proceed in that manner. 
A possible difficulty arises if aggravation applies merely to being in the vicinity of a school. There is always the possibility that transactions not related in any way to that school—they might take place half a mile or so away from it—would be caught by the provision as it stands. There is at the moment a quite broad definition of what the vicinity of a school is. However, the thrust behind this amendment is to ask why it should be that the protection offered by the clause, if it is necessary, is to be offered only in relation to schools.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) moved his amendment extremely well, and I have few quibbles with what he has said to date. It cannot have escaped the Committee's notice that many amendments have been tabled to the clause. However, they are mostly probing amendments to try to get at the Government's intentions and, as I said, to try and strengthen the Bill.
The Government, in subsection (1), are seeking to amend section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and apply these new provisions if an adult is committing the offence in the vicinity of a school. Amendment No. 28, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and myself, replaces the age of 18 with the age of criminal responsibility, in a similar fashion to amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 30 seeks to add another subsection to catch anyone hoping to supply drugs to children. I appreciate the imperfection of the drafting at this stage; it is only intended to point us in the right direction and to give the Minister the opportunity to make any alterations that she sees fit. 
The way in which drugs are permeating through our society is alarming. It seems that children are taking drugs at younger and younger ages and being exposed  to the drug culture. Few of us who saw a recent television report on drug-taking in London would have been anything other than horrified to see that concealed cameras had captured a child of about three, who was sitting in the passenger seat of a car, with the CCTV camera seeing in through the windscreen. She was seated next to an adult, alleged to be the child's mother, in the driver's seat, while the mother was taking crack cocaine. The child was helping her by using the lighter, and at one stage tried further to help but was pushed to one side. For prime-time television, I thought that that was an alarming but salutary lesson to us all of the younger and younger age groups that are being exposed to regular drug taking. 
According to statistics from Home Office research on drugs, all sources confirm that the use of drugs is widespread among young people and that the average age of first drug use is falling, quite dramatically. One in 12 of all 12-year-olds has tried drugs at least once, as have one in three 14-year-olds and two in five 16-year-olds. 
Even the age of the couriers has reached a point that is almost unbelievable. When I was reading some of the background information on dealing in the United Kingdom, I came across an horrendous story of an event in Gloucestershire that the police witnessed. The police found that children as young as four were being used to deliver packets of heroin. They watched a suspect's four-year-old daughter walk out of the family home clutching a bag and leave it on the ground for an addict. Subsequently, the user came to pick up the bag and the dealer met the user some time later to pick up his cash. 
The tough stance of the police on street dealing in the area in question had made it increasingly difficult for drug pushers to operate in public, so the pushers immediately became much more devious in transacting their illegal business. Police in Gloucestershire say that such practices are now quite a habit and that youngsters of about 12 or 13 are frequently used to carry drugs, often by their parents. The police have also found increasing instances of children as young as four or five being used in that fashion, although they admit that that is rare. 
I suppose that using children in that way is common sense, because if the police are more successful in an area, it is one way for the dealer to keep the drugs close to him and know that they are safe. At the same time, however, he can deny that they came from him, and if the drugs are found on a child, one defence, for example, would be to say that the child had just picked them up on the street. 
With younger and younger children being used as couriers and exposed to drugs, it follows that younger and younger children will potentially be dealing in drugs as well. In order to send out the message that anyone, of any age, dealing drugs in the vicinity of a school will not be tolerated, I would like the Minister to say why she did not make the provisions in the Bill apply to any dealer who had, for example, attained the age of criminal responsibility. 
I asked the Minister about some statistics, which, like the Bill, use the cut-off of 18 years. I asked how many people under 18 had been arrested for possessing or selling class A drugs in each of the past seven years. Sadly, she could not tell me, because that is not the basis for the Home Office statistics. I have only the figures from its drugs seizure and offenders' table for 2001 and 2002, and it would be helpful if she could make available the statistics for 2003 and, if possible, 2004. That aside, the table, which uses 17 as the cut-off, shows that the number of under-17s found guilty, cautioned or given a fiscal fine for unlawful possession rose from 7,870 in 2001 to a massive 9,300 in 2002. The number who were in possession of drugs with intent to supply unlawfully rose from 240 in 2001 to 250 in 2002. Likewise, the number dealt with for unlawful supply rose from 230 to 260 between those two years. 
I appreciate that the increases in the last two categories are not remarkable, but they are increases and it would be interesting to see whether the trend is followed through in 2003 and 2004. The dramatic increase, however, has been in the number of under-17s found to be in unlawful possession of drugs. Given that the Minister is using 17 as the cut-off age in the statistics, will she explain either why has she chosen 18 in the Bill or why the Home Office does not collect statistics based on the 18 cut-off? 
I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it would not be sensible to change the age for the courier, but the amendments were devices to initiate debate, and it is quite understandable to raise the issue. I hope, however, that the Minister will highlight her reasons for choosing 18 and for not amending the Bill to reduce the age, if that is what she chooses to do.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, it may help the Committee if I say that I have always taken the view that it is possible to have a stand part debate at the beginning of proceedings on a clause or at the end, but not both. It often helps hon. Members to have a fairly wide-ranging debate at the start of proceedings on a clause, and having seen the breadth of the amendments tabled to the clause, I think that it is already becoming apparent that a stand part debate is unlikely to be  necessary. I say that now, because hon. Members may want to make a contribution at this stage, rather than later.

John Mann: I would like to make a few points about the clause, starting with the issue of changing the age from 18 to 16. I think that other Labour Members would raise the same issue. I suggest to the Minister that the issue of defining youth and adulthood goes much wider than the clause and that it will need much wider, cross-departmental attention in the next Parliament if we are to define more precisely the law as it applies to young people—to define their rights, responsibilities and obligations. Such a debate impinges in many ways on much of the legislation that we enact, and it would be helpful to define adulthood more clearly.
There is a consensus in the Committee, and probably in the House of Commons, that aggravated drug supply is a bad thing and should be punished more significantly. However, is there a notion that somehow there is a relationship with schools? In my view, that is a myth. If it were not, I would be the first to demand such action in the strongest possible terms. The questions that I have tabled and received written answers to demonstrate that, if anything, the trend in serious drug problems inside schools is downward. 
Some of the anomalies in the clause highlight the problems. For example, if someone were to be convicted of aggravated drug supply for supplying drugs outside school, but not convicted of aggravated drug supply for supplying in the same place in the middle of the night, with certain drugs we could see the problem of syringe disposal in school playing fields. If a primary school were involved, such behaviour would seem to be the height of aggravated drug supply. That is the sort of problem that occasionally occurs in children's playgrounds in particular, which tend to be for young children, because that is precisely where older children and young adults tend to congregate. 
If we were to look at where there is aggravated, extremely dangerous discarding of needles—although any discarding of needles is obviously dangerous—it would be in areas where young children might be. Of course, that could happen in a general playing field as well as a specific designated children's playing field. It seems to me that there is a potential inconsistency. 
Another point is whether drug dealers wait outside the school gate. When I came into Parliament, I thought that that was the case. Two years ago, I thought that it was a major problem. More than 200 of my constituents wrote to me to tell me that it was a major problem. When I investigated, I found that it was a myth. Plenty of drugs were supplied, but the idea that the drug dealer would wait outside the school gate to pounce on the children coming out of the school was a myth, although it was one that was widely—

Caroline Flint: The clause does not talk about outside the school gates. It talks about in the vicinity of a school. I hope to explain the reasoning behind that. I do not think that the jolly local drug dealer necessarily comes along and stands straight outside the school gate. We are not implying that, although it may  happen on occasion and those people will be caught by this offence. We are talking about the vicinity of a school, and we will provide guidelines on what exactly we mean by that.

John Mann: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. However, my term ''outside the school gates'' was a euphemism in the case of secondary schools in particular, where entrances, exits and routes through schools are widespread, particularly in dinner time periods. When I examined the more than 200 specific allegations, I found that recorded offences were not there at all.

Cheryl Gillan: When we reach amendment No. 1, I hope to go into this issue further, but I agree with the example of the playing field outlined by the hon. Gentleman. A playing field could obviously be within the vicinity of the school, and needles could be present. However, would he agree that even though the drugs may not change hands outside the school gates, that is often where contact is made with children with the intention of supplying drugs at a future time and date at an arranged place? The contact is made in and around the school by the dealer.

John Mann: Again, that was my assumption when I first became a Member and before I first investigated the issue. When I did, I talked to the drug dealers, who, in this context, are not big dealers, but suppliers and, in particular, pushers aiming to get into a new market. Of course, they are not always the most honest people, but if one considers their answers and correlates what they said about where they were arrested, where they bought drugs and where they first bought them when they came into the drug-taking arena, one sees a consistent pattern.
That pattern was confirmed when I spoke to pupils in all the secondary schools in my area. I spoke to them over a prolonged period and in some detail, and I asked them, with no other adults present and without any names being exchanged, what access they had to drugs and what drugs they had. What they said was very interesting. In essence, they were saying, ''Why would we not know where to buy drugs? They're widespread in society. Why would we buy drugs inside or outside school? That is the most stupid place to buy them. If we want drugs, we know where to go.'' I asked them where they bought drugs, and they said that they bought them in the evening and at the weekend from people they knew, and particularly in social settings. I am talking about what are now known as class C drugs being bought at what one could call parties—social settings where young people, but not older people, are present. 
Therefore, young people not only do not buy or sell drugs in and around schools—they would not even consider doing so. They think that anyone who does is particularly to be avoided, even if they themselves want to purchase drugs. As a result, while the spirit of the clause is very welcome, the provisions will have a negligible effect. In discussing aggravation, we need to look at the sorts of drug use that exist. Neither the amendment nor the clause focus on the potential  public health risks from discarded needles, and that risk sometimes correlates directly to the basis of the sale. 
I will stop there, however, because I want to save the Committee time. I could go into greater detail, but I hope that hon. Members will take it on trust that I have other examples from my constituency. They relate not to defined spaces allocated to young people, but to spaces that young people use all the time in their everyday lives. There is a significant risk in that respect, not only to those who use drugs, but to those walking in the streets or, more likely, the fields in that area.

Angela Watkinson: Everybody in the Room has good intentions as regards doing whatever we can to protect young children from being exposed to drugs and tempted to try them, and all the proposals in the Bill have that aim in mind.
I am sure that all hon. Members have, like me, received lobby material from all sorts of interested groups. I was disappointed, however, by the briefing that I received from the Transform drug policy foundation, which claims that it would like the Bill to be scrapped and not to get on to the statute book. It claims: 
 ''There has been an unacceptable lack of consultation with key stakeholders in the drugs field''. 
I would submit that the key stakeholders are those children who have thus far managed to avoid being tempted into taking drugs. It is our duty to protect them from adding themselves to the ever-growing list of young people who are in need of treatment and who are heading towards a lifelong habit that will endanger their health, education and employment prospects. 
Amendment No. 28 proposes that we leave out '18' and insert '16' and insert ''criminal responsibility''. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. This is where we need to focus our efforts on protecting the youngest children. Drug dealers are turning their attention to primary schools and ever-younger children, looking for new customers to fuel their never-ending income from those who need a constant supply of drugs, and making the drugs cheaper, at pocket-money prices. Therefore, 10 is a more appropriate age of responsibility. We will afford more protection to more children if the age limit is as low as possible. 
The Minister said that she would go into greater detail about the words 
''in the vicinity of a school''. 
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said that he believes that dealing outside school gates is not prevalent. I confess that I have not hung around school gates to find out. Dealing may indeed not be very prevalent in those areas, but any dealing in the vicinity of schools must be taken extremely seriously, because it deliberately tries to entrap children into taking drugs, experimenting with them, acquiring the habit and becoming regular customers. It is our duty, however infrequently it might happen, to treat such dealing as an aggravated offence. 
I want to see a distinction made between primary and secondary schools, because it is far more serious to deal drugs to very young children for the reasons that I have given. Serious as it is to offer drugs to secondary-age children, it is even more serious to offer them to primary-age children, who are more naive, have no experience in resisting pressure and are even more vulnerable. 
One of the secondary schools in my constituency, of which I am a governor, is a community school whose buildings are in almost constant use. There are breakfast clubs, so the pupils arrive very early in the morning. At the end of the school day there are homework facilities and all sorts of extra-curricular activities. Then there are adult education classes in the evening and sports events going on inside and outside the buildings. Therefore, young people are on the premises for many hours in the day. In addition, the community church uses the school hall on Sunday mornings. The length of time that the school building is in use far outweighs the time when it is not. There is justification for deleting at the end of subsection (3) the words ''a relevant time''. The relevant time is so wide that the words become almost irrelevant; we could say ''At any time.'' 
Subsection (7) contains the word ''requests''. The Minister is looking puzzled. 
Caroline Flint rose—

Roger Gale: Order. Before the Minister seeks to intervene I should say that, in a sense, I have brought this on my own head by inviting a wide-ranging debate, but the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Wilkinson) will find that a later amendment deals with this point. While I am perfectly happy to have a wide-ranging debate about the principle behind the clause, it would be helpful if the Committee concentrated on the amendments under discussion so far as possible. I notice that we began a discussion about vicinity, and the appropriate place for that debate is probably on amendment No. 1.

Angela Watkinson: I apologise for getting carried away with a subject that is of abiding interest to us all, Mr. Gale. I will link tenuously to the clause.
Drugs education in schools heightens children's awareness of drugs, which makes them more vulnerable because it increases their interest. They have more information on the subject at their fingerprints than they would ever have acquired by accident. I know that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw will challenge me on that.

John Mann: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the DARE programme encourages drug-taking?

Angela Watkinson: DARE is one of the better drugs education programmes on offer. I have said many times that the focus should be on drug prevention rather than harm reduction, which starts with the assumption that most children will take drugs anyway, so we should reduce the harm and make it as safe as possible. I contend that the majority of young people do not take drugs. The downgrading of cannabis has given many young people the impression that it is legal now, and not particularly harmful. The police do not enforce against possession if it is deemed to be for personal use, and that has had a detrimental effect on the general attitude to drugs among schoolchildren, as well as increasing their vulnerability to dealers who not only offer cannabis but also a wide range of other wares that they can be tempted to try. I support the words ''age of criminal responsibility'' being added to the clause, so that its scope is widened and it will provide the greatest possible protection to the youngest children.

Brian Iddon: I have three points to make in response to your invitation on the stand part section of this debate, Mr. Gale, but my remarks refer to all the amendments, so perhaps it is right to make them now.
First, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Upminster on consultation. Will the Minister tell us exactly which organisations or individuals have been consulted about the aggravation clause? 
Secondly, the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill states: 
 ''Courts currently have discretion to take into account any aggravating factors present when the offence is committed''. 
I raised the need for a clause on aggravated offences on Second Reading. I have had an answer from the Minister informally, but perhaps, in view of that comment in the RIA, she will put on the record why she feels that clause 1 is necessary. 
Thirdly, the Home Office's own calculations, on page 19 of the RIA, suggest that the net effect of the change will be to add an average of one month to an estimated 63 convictions each year for aggravated supply. I wonder whether the Minister will convince us of the need for the clause.

Caroline Flint: Before I respond to the group of amendments before us, I ask for the support of the Committee in order to aid discussion. I am happy to try to deal with all the points that have been raised, but it will help me if we can respond under clause 1 to each group of amendments, and if there are any outstanding issues at the end I will try to answer individual concerns, although I may not always succeed. That might help me by allowing me to collect my thoughts.

Roger Gale: I hope that I have made the position plain, but let me place it firmly on the record. There is a broad principle behind the clause. That can be debated at the start of the clause or the end of the clause, in a clause stand part debate. I am happy for that broad principle to be discussed, and indeed it has been. There are also amendments. Amendment No. 1, which we will reach in due course, deals with vicinity, and amendment No. 25 deals with the issue of time,  which was also raised. The appropriate place to deal with those matters is when the amendments are moved.

Caroline Flint: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Gale. I will attend to the group of amendments that are before us, which in different ways challenge the cut-off point of 18 in the clause. As has already been outlined by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—although he said that his amendments were probing amendments—amendment No. 9 would lower the age at which a dealer would fall under the clause. It would catch 16 and 17-year-olds who were dealing. Their offence would be subject to the aggravating factor. Likewise, amendment No. 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and supported by the hon. Member for Upminster, would lower the age at which a dealer would fall under the clause yet further to the age of 10. Effectively, the amendment would mean that offences committed by those between the ages of 10 and 17 who were dealing would be subject to the aggravating factor.
I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said about this issue, and I would not dispute that there are young people under the age of 18—and probably considerably under the age of 16—who are involved in dealing drugs. We need to ask some questions about who the adults are behind the supply of those drugs to those young people. We must carefully consider the way in which we determine how vulnerable different groups of people in society are to those influences.

Cheryl Gillan: I entirely agree with the Minister. At the moment, the way in which the clause is worded means that a 17-and-a-half-year-old is protected from receiving an aggravated sentence. In the case of that group of youngsters—even the 16 to 18-year-olds—there might need to be greater intervention to allow the sentence to have greater effect. I suppose that I am arguing against a short, sharp shock and for a slightly longer sentence so that we have a better chance of educating youngsters and preventing them from reoffending.

Caroline Flint: I will explore that point as I develop my comments. My personal feelings about treating young people aged 10 to 17 in the same way as those over 18 for the purposes of the clause are supported by a number of organisations which work with young people who misuse drugs or who are involved in the supply side. Existing sentencing guidelines enable the courts to treat the targeting of vulnerable victims as an aggravating factor. In the context of sentencing 10 to 17-year-olds, that is best left to the discretion of the courts. I say that on the basis that some of the ways in which we have tried to challenge offending behaviour and to prevent young people from committing crimes again, through considering the different issues surrounding that behaviour, have brought us on in leaps and bounds.
That is not to say that young people do not sometimes commit crimes again. They do. However, when a young person is involved in the supply of drugs, we must carefully consider the circumstances in which that has come about and try to address them. I am not  negating the fact that the young person must take responsibility for committing the offence, but we must look more closely at their vulnerability, as well as their offending behaviour.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister said that existing sentencing guidelines allow for the protection of vulnerable people. Therefore, why is the clause necessary at all?

Caroline Flint: Although there are aggravating factors in relation to supplying drugs to a vulnerable person—the secretariat to the Sentencing Guidelines Council has confirmed for me, because I wanted to check it following Second Reading, that the term ''vulnerable victims'' covers young persons under 18—they would apply when a dealer supplied drugs to a person under 18. However, this clause applies to someone seen dealing drugs, perhaps to an adult, in the vicinity of a school—we will talk a bit more about that under amendment No. 1. They do not necessarily have to be caught dealing to someone under 18. For the aggravated factor to apply, someone does not have to be found dealing to a young person if they are dealing in the vicinity of a school. It is a legal requirement for all young people to go to school, so we are trying to protect them from such influences and the environment in which drug dealing takes place. That is why the clause goes further than covering those who deal directly to a young person.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister expects the clause to do more than it does. She is suggesting that if she and I, for example, involved ourselves in a drugs transaction in the vicinity of a school, that would be treated as an aggravation under this Bill, but that is not the case. Given subsection (4), aggravation applies only if one is caught using a courier under the age of 18.

Caroline Flint: We are requiring the courts to treat drug dealing in the vicinity of a school as aggravated, which is different from the aggravated factor that currently exists of dealing to a vulnerable person. If a person is arrested for dealing drugs in the vicinity of a school, that should be put forward by the prosecution as an aggravated factor. When we talk about schools, the vulnerable people who we are trying to protect are those under 18. However, in order for the aggravating factor to apply, it is the vicinity that is important, and the provision therefore expands beyond the aggravated factor depending on the vulnerable person.
Mrs. Gillan rose—

Caroline Flint: Could I finish talking about the age of a dealer caught under this offence, because I would like to expand on that point? Although we take seriously any person, no matter how old, supplying drugs to another person, particularly a young person, it is important to consider the vulnerability of the offender. That is one reason why the cut-off point is 18.  In many respects, that fits in with other measures for prevention and working with young people involved with drugs.

Cheryl Gillan: I want to take the Minister back to the discussion before the interventions from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and give her a break while she catches up with her notes. The logic for not reducing the age to 16 and leaving it at 18 is still difficult to follow. Where convictions occur, the highest rates of reoffending and reconviction are between the ages of 14 and 17—that age group has the heaviest reconviction rates within two years of coming out of prison. Therefore, to reduce the age, and make younger dealers—who, if they are over 16, are really adults in our world—subject to the aggravated offence, would be just common sense in the light of the evidence base derived from the statistics.

Caroline Flint: As I said, we have to bear in mind whether we consider those under 18 to be vulnerable as well as judging their actions, which I do not accept. Responsibility has to be taken for their actions. When we are dealing with young people and children, our approach should recognise that those children have often been subject to influences from other adults. That is one of the reasons why the issue of treating children as couriers is important. Examples were given by hon. Members, and I saw the report in my newspaper about the three-year-old who was asked by her mother to deposit drugs.
In some cases, children may be aware of what they are doing, but in some cases they probably are not. We are talking about three and four-year-olds who would see such activity as normal and a part of their life. They will not necessarily know what they are doing. We have to be careful about how we deal with people in this young age group, whether they are 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17. In other areas of public policy we recognise that we might need to take a different approach to young people involved in offending or risk-taking behaviour. There is no reason why we should not apply that approach in this regard. 
In the case of any young person under 18 who is involved with drugs, we would hope to get to the bottom of what is going on. That is not just a question of a longer sentence. The involvement of a three or four-year-old who has grown up and is now 14, 15 or 16, may be a product of their parents' use of drugs. Many issues need to be considered, and the framework within which we deal with those young people is somewhat different from the one that we might expect for adults. 
I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made. The debate about age, and when one becomes an adult or a young person—taking into account factors such as getting the vote at 16, or the age of consent—is not always straightforward. People have very different views on the point at which a person becomes totally responsible. The age ranges set  out in the clause are appropriate to our activities in this area, particularly the work that we are doing in terms of prevention and treatment for young people. 
Amendment No. 17 would have the effect of making the supply of controlled drugs by a person aged 18 or over to a person under the age of 16, wherever it takes place, an aggravating factor that a court must take into account when considering the seriousness of the offence. The intention of the clause is to protect young people from dealers at or near their place of education, and from being used as drug couriers. 
The clause responds to parental concern; I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw did not find evidence of drug dealing in the survey he undertook in his constituency—certainly not outside school gates. We are talking about dealing in the vicinity of such places. We shall talk about the issue later, but I shall just touch on it. Dealing might take place on the route to school. We have to explore that matter, and work out the points at which young people are vulnerable. 
The clause responds to parental concern. I had a meeting with Turning Point, Drugscope, Addaction and Adfam, where we went through all the clauses. From that meeting I did not get an impression that it was thought that the clause was unhelpful in the general scheme of trying to protect young people. I understand that the clause was also discussed at the Association of Chief Police Officers drugs committee. 
Furthermore, the amendment is unnecessary because current sentencing guidelines list, among other aggravating factors to which courts can have regard when deciding the seriousness of the offence, the deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims. This allows the courts to use their discretion to deal appropriately with the supply of controlled drugs to young people in situations other than in the vicinity of school. 
I have already explained that I am opposed to reducing the age at which the person being dealt the drugs is an aggravating factor below the age of 18. I hope that is understood by the Committee. Sometimes the Home Office is criticised for having too much of a stick with young people. I am not saying that those under 18 should not accept responsibility if they are involved in drug dealing, but in this area we must be mindful of their own vulnerabilities as well. 
In terms of dealing to under-16s in the vicinity of a school, amendment No. 30 would mean that the clause would apply only where an adult was intending to supply controlled drugs to a person under the age of 16. The courts would therefore be required to take into account these aggravating factors only if the offender intended to supply a controlled drug to a person under the age of 16. The effect would be to reduce the protection given by the clause to school pupils aged 16 and 17 because dealing to these people within the vicinity of a school would not fall within the scope of this provision. This amendment would also substantially reduce the protection given by the clause to all young people, including those under the age of 16. 
By preventing this clause from applying to those adults who deal to other adults and persons aged 16 and 17 within the vicinity of the school, I think this amendment weakens that protection—for reasons which I hope I have adequately explained to the Committee. 
Children are required by law to attend school. We consider it to be essential that children and young people should be able to do so without being exposed to the risk of drug dealing when they are there. For those who do commit that offence, that should be taken into account. 
This amendment would mean that the use of a courier under the age of 18—where the supplier was not intending to supply drugs to a person under the age of 16—would fall outside the scope of this clause. The use of a person under the age of 18 to deliver drugs or drug-related cash should be an aggravated factor regardless of the age of the person to whom they are delivering those drugs or that drug-related cash. This goes back to the point about how we are looking at vulnerable persons in this respect, and that 16 and 17-year-olds should be protected too. On that basis I ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland not to press his amendments, and I conclude there.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister concludes by saying ''on that basis''. I am not clear exactly what basis that is supposed to be. On the particular points that have been raised on these amendments there has been little satisfactory explanation given.
I shall follow the lead taken by others and say a few general remarks on the overall thrust of these amendments and put them in the context of the clause. Perhaps I can take a prompt from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and say that I do not think that the clause serves any useful purpose. It is an attempt to address a mischief that is less real than apparent. It comes under the heading of pre-election window-dressing. 
I want to consider the question of dealing outside a school.

John Mann: I should not want the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that I think proposed new section 4A(4) on couriers inappropriate. It is a very important provision. I was questioning the effectiveness of new subsection (3), but new subsection (4) is important. We should not rubbish the entire clause on the issue of whether new subsection (3) is workable.

Alistair Carmichael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but even proposed new subsection (4) deals with the sort of information that, on a charge under section  4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which covers being concerned in supply, would properly be put before the court already. It would already be treated as an aggravating factor by any sheriff or judge hearing the case and lead them to increase the sentence. Nothing in the Bill changes that.

Caroline Flint: One of the issues that led to our feeling that we had to act—and I do not necessarily dispute the hon. Gentleman's point that a court hearing the whole case would be minded to take into account the fact that a drug dealer had used children—was that there is evidence of greater and greater involvement of children in such offences. We felt that it should be seen as a separate factor, with a view to tackling the adults who clearly think that using children and young people will help them in their illegal activity.

Alistair Carmichael: If the Minister could tell me that more and more people are using children in drug supply and that the courts do not deal with it, I might be sympathetic to the clause. However, she does not say that. All that she says is that more and more children are used in the course of drug supply. I have no reason to doubt her. That is probably a trend that has been continuing for several years now. However, information of that kind would be put before the court under existing law and would be reflected in the sentence. I shall deal with sentencing on a later amendment.
I am just waiting for the day when the Government present to the House a Bill to make murder illegal. We seem to spend so much time criminalising conduct that is already illegal. If there is a problem, it could probably have been dealt with by sentencing guidelines. I do not accept that there is a particular problem in sentencing. The Minister has not said that there is a sentencing problem. I do not see that the clause is necessary.

Cheryl Gillan: If the hon. Gentleman indicated that he wanted to press amendment No. 9 to the vote at any stage, he would have support from my Benches. Does he agree that there is about the Bill a definite pre-election feeling of having been drafted to show that the Government are being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? In fact it is perhaps a little otiose, and if more time had been taken over it, it might have been found to be unnecessary.

Alistair Carmichael: ''Otiose'' is a wonderful word. I have not used it since I stopped appearing in court, but it was always a favourite. It fits the bill—in every sense—perfectly.
I am also concerned that having once started down the road of dealing with the matter as the clause does, one has to come up with ever more inventive aggravations. 
The hon. Member for Upminster said that she wanted to see a distinction between primary and secondary schools. That is something else that the courts should be made aware of when the sentence is imposed. The hon. Lady is quite right: the logical  conclusion of the route that the Government seek to follow is that we then have an aggravated aggravation of dealing in the vicinity not just of a school, but of a primary school. 
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw seeks to draw attention to discarded needles. It is just about possible to think how one can bring that into clauses that deal with supply. It is a quite separate issue, but yes, it would be an aggravation and it is a mischief that we should seek to remove. The hon. Member for Upminster also said that she was disappointed by the Transform briefing. I am not quite clear whether it was the content or the lack of consultation that disappointed her. The lack of consultation rather adds to my impression that the Bill is not particularly well thought out. She spoke about our duty to protect children. As a parent I take that duty very seriously. That is why I think that children deserve something rather better than this, which seeks to address a mischief that the law already deals with. 
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made some telling points about the regulatory impact assessment, which the Minister did not deal with. When challenged on the question of vicinity she said that they would think about that later. It will not be thought about later. It will be dealt with by the courts later. She said that vicinity might include routes to school. I thought that a quite remarkable suggestion. My route to school was 14 miles long—

Roger Gale: Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He heard me tell the Minister that this would be dealt with under amendment No. 1. It is not entirely reasonable for the Minister to be criticised for adhering to my admonition.

Alistair Carmichael: Fair enough, we will return to that on amendment No. 1.
Unfortunately the Minister has not really addressed the point that we have sought to raise. I do not particularly like the clause. However, if we are to have it we should have a sensible and workable clause that will work for the police, the prosecutors and the lawyers and judges in the courts who will be charged with implementing it. At present there are an awful lot of inconsistencies, which my amendments seek to highlight. The most obvious is the reduction from 18 to 16 which I propose in amendment No. 9. The Minister has not given us any reason why that should not happen.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to the reason why he thinks that 16 and 17-year-olds, who in other aspects of the law are defined as vulnerable people, should not be so in this context? He has not explained why he thinks we should not apply to them the same measures as we apply to young people and children. He argues that 16 and 17-year-olds should be treated as adults, thereby removing their vulnerability as young people, which applies in other aspects of the law.

Alistair Carmichael: First, the Minister will have heard what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said about the number of offences involving 14 to 17-year-olds. I will not rehearse those remarks. Secondly, I do not know whether she is saying that all 16 to 18-year-olds are vulnerable people. That is a rather sweeping statement. When I first spoke to the amendment I explained to her, and she nodded in agreement, that 16 and 17-year-olds would be best placed to commit these offences.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this debate shows how the ages at which we acquire responsibility in this country are in a complete mess? Ten is the age of criminal responsibility and one can get married at 16. We have more teenage mothers than any other country in Europe. At 18 one can die for one's country, but one cannot be a Member of Parliament until the age of 21. This whole area needs clearing up. There is no doubt that 16 to 18-year-olds know what they are doing if they are selling drugs to other children in the vicinity of a school. We want that to be recognised as an aggravated offence.

Alistair Carmichael: That is a fair point. The extent to which a young person between 16 and 18 might be vulnerable while still being caught by this provision would be determined by the court. However, if we follow the Minister's logic, it should be open to the court to make that determination. As the clause stands, it is not. That is the point that the Minister has not addressed.

Caroline Flint: We feel that it should not be simply left to the courts but that these should be made aggravated factors because the courts are then required to take these issues into account. That sends a stronger message than something in the sentencing guidelines which is left to the court's discretion. People have disagreements about the ages here, but in principle it sends a stronger message than leaving it to the court's discretion.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister's note answers the point that I made before my present point which involves 16 to 18-year-olds. She has not explained why the courts should not have the option of dealing with 16 to 18-year-olds as having acted in an aggravated way. Accordingly, I press my amendment to a vote.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made:— 
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, after 'aggravated', insert
'and must state the portion of a sentence being imposed that relates to this aggravation'. 
As I have already indicated, my approach to the clause is essentially practical. If we are to have it, it might as well make sense to those who will have to deal with it, particularly those who will have to deal with it in court. Accordingly, the amendment would place a requirement on the court to state what portion of the sentence relates to the aggravation. If a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment were to be imposed, the judge would be required to state that two months were being imposed because it was an aggravated offence. That is perfectly straightforward. I have to say that it is not an original idea on my part; this approach to sentencing is taken in respect of a number of offences, particularly aggravations of offences, certainly in Scotland, which was committed while the offender was on bail. In those circumstances, the sentencing judge is required to say, for example, that the sentence is three months, of which one month is imposed because the person offended while on bail. 
If the amendment is not accepted, there will be a provision on aggravation that does not really achieve anything, and it will be difficult to see that any purpose has been served. The amendment is as straightforward as that, and I am interested to know the Government's thinking on it.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has tabled a small but eminently sensible amendment. If the clause is intended to drive drug dealers away from vulnerable people and schools, a clear signal needs to be sent to them that they can expect to receive heavier sentences if they are caught in such areas, and they need to be able to see what the additional penalty will be. In that sense, adding the amendment to the clause would strengthen the deterrent factor for dealers in and around schools, because it would soon get round that if they were caught in the vicinity of a school or using children as couriers, they could expect to receive another six months or a year in prison.
The amendment also gives the Minister an opportunity to let us know at this stage what size the aggravated proportion of the sentence will be. What does she envisage? Has she had discussions on what length of time might be superimposed on the sentence when the provisions of this clause on aggravation are met? Without making a fuss about it, I support the amendment, because it would provide clarity and would hand a powerful tool of reinforcement to the courts and the police to deter people from dealing drugs in and around school premises.

Caroline Flint: To the extent that the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland relates to transparency about where aggravated factors fit when  sentences are agreed in court, I have some sympathy with it and with what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said about being able to see clearly the impact of aggravation for the victim and the defendant. As hon. Members will be aware, several statutory aggravating factors already exist—for example, those set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for an increase in sentence based on aggravation related to sexual orientation, disability, race or religion. That Act provides, much as the Bill does, that the court must treat the fact that the offence was so aggravated as increasing the seriousness of the offence, and that it must be stated in open court that the offence was so aggravated.
The question is whether there should be a requirement in statute to explain what portion of the sentence is for the aggravation. It might be more appropriate to take some issues up in the context of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I hope that it will help hon. Members if I say that that council has the role of setting guidelines and that I understand that it plans to look in detail at aggravating and mitigating factors generally, and will consider, where appropriate, what weight such factors should carry. To pre-empt that exercise at this stage would cut across some of the council's work. It will consider all these issues in a wider context and with full consultation, and will then carry the outcome through into individual offence guidelines. Should the Bill be passed, those aggravating factors would also come into the context of that area. I shall certainly discuss with officials and with the council how that will be taken forward. It is important that tackling the issue should not be viewed in isolation from other aggravating factors related to sentencing for other offences. I hope that what I have said is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Alistair Carmichael: It is not really. I am not going to make a fuss about the matter, but I do not see how such a requirement would cut across the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It would have the benefit of concentrating the mind of the sentencing judge on the extent to which the offence has been aggravated. The work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council would be to give better guidance and perhaps to achieve better uniformity in what was applied. However, if we had that degree of transparency, it would show whether the work of the Sentencing Guidelines Council was unnecessary or very necessary.

Cheryl Gillan: Is it not disappointing that we have no indication as to the strength of addition to the sentence that would come from the aggravated offence, so it will not act as the deterrent that we hoped that it would? I think that the hon. Gentleman and I both support the original clause, and are looking for a deterrent effect on dealers.

Alistair Carmichael: That is true. If a court is required to say that an offence is aggravated in this manner, and that must be done in open court, my amendment is simply the next logical step.

Caroline Flint: It is difficult, at this stage, to predict the length of the additional part of the sentence. Under current guidelines, the court has to take into account a number of factors such as the nature of the offence and the impact on the victims. That is why what I said earlier about the consultation that the Sentencing Guidelines Council intends to have on issues related to aggravating factors is important to the debate and to other areas in which aggravating factors apply. No doubt part of that consultation will be about weighting in relation to the totality of the final sentence.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not think that we will resolve this matter. If the Government say that offences are aggravated in the sense that that makes an offence more serious, and that that affects sentencing, the public are entitled to expect that more serious offences receive more serious sentences, and to know the extent to which a sentence has been lengthened. I am disappointed that the Minister does not see the logic in that, and that she seems to be distracted by other considerations that are not particularly relevant. However, this is not the most important of the amendments and, in order to speed proceedings up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, after 'school', insert
'youth club, skate park, arcade or bowling alley'. 
I am going to make a generous offer to the Minister. This is her big opportunity to try to give the clause a few teeth, because so far she has resisted the valiant attempts of Opposition Members to strengthen the clause. 
We now come on to a debate in which I expect that there will be several participants—I see that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is lighting up already for his contribution. We seek, through the amendment, to add the words 
''youth club, skate park, arcade or bowling alley'' 
to the clause. That is not an extensive list of places, but more indicative of the direction that we are taking. I took the wording directly from the debate on Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) indicated that although we agreed with the basic principle of applying an aggravated factor to dealing in and around schools, we wanted to press the Minister on dealing to children in general and challenge her decision to stop at schools. 
The school is a good place to start, but even on Second Reading the evidence base on which the Minister was presumed to be relying was challenged from her own Benches by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. He has done a tremendous amount of research in his constituency, and I would be one of the first people to praise the depth in which he has examined the problem. I understand that he found a diminishing amount of evidence through his inquiries of physical dealing right outside the front door of schools. I hope that he will enlighten us further on his research during this debate. However, I agree with the  Minister that dealing around schools is a problem. This is an interesting dilemma: I agree with a Labour Minister, whose own Back Bencher says that this is not based on reliable evidence. 
I was approached last year by a teacher who told me that the dealers were literally at the front gate of his school. Word had got around that, at certain times, the dealer would be in and around the school. I got the distinct impression, from what I freely admit was anecdotal information, that dealers made contact with children in and around the school and set up meetings in other locations. That is often the first point of call outside the school to get in with the crowd, get known as a nice chap or girl, perhaps even hand out free sample drugs, sell them or just move dealing to another location. I want to know whether that scenario is covered by the clause. As I read it, it would not cover a dealer on a pre-sales trawl around a school because it is too narrowly drawn and too easily circumvented. 
The wording of our amendment may not be sophisticated, but I would be willing to support a correctly drafted Government amendment either widening the scope of the area in which dealing takes place, or targeting any dealing of drugs to children anywhere at any time. I am asking the Minister to take the clause away and come up with a solution. She has at her behest parliamentary draftsmen and a whole raft of officials in the Home Office who have nothing better to do than examine the clause and ensure that it has teeth and bite in our society. 
The truth is that deals are concluded all over the place: in car parks, on playing fields, in the staircases of blocks of flats or out on the streets where youngsters congregate, particularly after dark. An ideal example of this comes from Camden. A report in Camden New Journal illustrates the problem precisely. It is a fairly horrendous article and I shall quote selectively from it, but the headline is ''Welcome to the House of Horror.'' The article begins: 
 ''Drug dealers are luring children to the top floor of a Camden tower block to sell them rocks of crack while neighbours live under a self-imposed curfew of fear. Residents say drug deals take place just 200 yards from a police station which is closed at night. Vandalism and violence has led to the . . . block . . . becoming known as the 'House of Horrors'.'' 
One resident, who has lived on the estate since the '60s is quoted as saying: 
 ''We're so frightened. The dealers are the kind of people who, if they get a grudge against you, will burn you out''. 
The article continues: 
 ''Around five or six dealers, all about 30, use the stairwell that leads to the roof on the 18th floor to sell drugs to as many as 20 children at a time. Some of the children come from . . . nearly a mile away. Residents regularly find burnt tin foil and yellowed smoking pipes made from soft drink bottles—the detritus from smoking crack cocaine. Children as young as 13 have been seen with the older dealers. They come to the block because it has no security and has a 'great view'.'' 
It is not outwith the realms of possibility that contact with those children in Camden was made in and around the streets surrounding their school premises. But the clause will not catch the dealers because even if they make contact there, the dealing will be done away from the school. 
What about playing fields, especially those that are far away from the school? There are schools in Chesham and Amersham that are in a cul de sac at the end of a long road. In such cases does ''in the vicinity of a school'' mean on the main road, or in the road leading to the cul de sac where the school is situated? Those are geographical matters that need to be made more transparent. 
It is interesting to note that the briefings I have received on the subject do not all agree. For example, DrugScope pointed out one drawback in narrowing the provision. That organisation, like all of us, is becoming increasingly concerned about young people's use of drugs and therefore it does not oppose making it an aggravated offence to be found dealing near a school or using young people to run drugs. However, Drugscope thought the provision was symbolic, because some senior police officers have questioned whether there is a problem with dealers targeting schools, which is the argument of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. They believe that only very small-time dealers operate around schools, and young people come into contact with the dealers through older siblings and friends.That is another challenge to the Minister's logic which, although I do not agree with it, I would like her to answer. 
Transform Drug Policy Foundation believes the benefits of the clause to be entirely political, 
''pandering to popular fears, stoked by tabloid media coverage''. 
It stated: 
 ''The regulatory impact assessment notes the 'concern expressed' about this problem''— 
the language that the Minister used— 
''and the 'anecdotal evidence' to support it.'' 
Transform believes that the provision springs 
''entirely from newspapers, notably . . . the News of the World (to whom Tony Blair gave an exclusive interview announcing random drug testing in schools (22.02.04))''. 
It backs up its views with quotations from the 1998 report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. 
I disagree with the views expressed by Transform, but it is important that the Minister responds to them. She must set out her case for limiting the provision to schools and consider either widening it to include any building that may be accessed by young people, or to include the provision of dealing drugs to children. 
 I offer the Minister a golden opportunity to strengthen the clause and to deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw by not  restricting it to schools. I shall listen to the Minister with an open heart and with optimism in the hope that she may provide a solution for all of us.

John Mann: I shall make a couple of quick points on the amendment. First, I ask the hon. Lady and the Minister if they will give a definition of ''vicinity''. I smiled at the term ''arcade'' in the amendment, although I appreciate that it has nothing to do with forthcoming events in May. In the north of England, an arcade is a shopping precinct. According to any reasonable definition, references to being in the vicinity of an arcade would include most of the centre of Leeds and many other big cities in the north.

Cheryl Gillan: I am not a stranger to the north. Shopping arcades are places where children hang around in large numbers.

John Mann: The bowling alley in Bassetlaw is a carpet bowling alley. I have done some research and no children are known to have used it. I would not wish to give an average age, but it would certainly be a pensionable age. That would be an interesting aggravated supply. Perhaps it would involve amphetamines.
My basic point is aimed at the hon. Lady and the Minister. There is no particular reason for anyone to vote against the provision, but it does very little. The Government are underplaying their own success. There has been success in relation to drugs in and around schools and the use of drugs by school-age children. There is not a growing problem with children and drugs. Nobody can provide the evidence. My own research, which is only constituency based, demonstrates that over the past two years the use of cannabis among schoolchildren has declined. I cannot give a reason for that. I would love to say that it is due to changes in Government policy, but I think that there are probably other reasons—although it probably helps the Government's case because it suggests that the situation has not worsened following the change in policy. The decline is difficult to explain, but it has happened. I could give an amateur analysis of the reasons for that, but you will be pleased to hear that I will not do that now, Mr. Gale. In my area, judging by any quantifiable data, there is less use of drugs by school-age children. 
I have asked to see the national statistics. The responses that I received show that no one can provide the evidence. I asked the Department for Education and Skills, through a written question, for notification of illegal drug possession by school pupils on school premises, but that information is not acquired and kept nationally. I asked about school exclusions for taking drugs. Those seemed to be the kind of add-ons that there would be if there was a growing problem. I wanted to see what the trend was. Again, those figures are not available. I asked the Home Office how many drug dealers were convicted of dealing outside schools in each of the past 10 years, but the information is not available because it is not collected centrally. I checked with the police in my constituency. We struggled to  find any examples and yet there are a phenomenal number of drug dealing and supplying offences in Bassetlaw. 
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said more than half of what I wanted to say. Her illustration is something that I can relate to. The evidence shows that drug dealing is taking place in stairwells and flats that people are lured to. However, it is not taking place in the vicinity of schools, arcades or bowling alleys. There is the idea that drug dealers hang around schools and whisper, ''Here's a flat where you can come and get some drugs,'' but it does not work like that. It works by word of mouth, through the community. If I wanted to find out today where to get illegal cigarettes and illegal alcohol in my constituency, I am fairly sure that if I made sufficient phone calls, there would be a good chance that I could find somewhere selling them. I am also fairly sure that a few hours before—or after—the police would have been there to shut the place down. 
I can also identify where heroin is being supplied. Every single premises or individual that I have identified from information given to me by my constituents has resulted in a conviction and a suitably long prison sentence for those involved. There have been a lot of those in the last year. 
The drugs are in people's houses and flats. That is where people go to buy drugs. They ring up from phone boxes—I could say which ones—and the school pupils know which numbers to ring and where to go. We do not have the sort of prostitution problems that London has, but we have an equivalent situation with cards in phone boxes. If people go to a certain phone box at a certain time—the phone boxes are switched because of police monitoring—they will find out where to go. A firework is let off in my area to signify that new drugs have arrived. If a firework goes off at strange times of the year, people know that drugs are available, and they know which flats to go to. 
Certain flats have changed from single occupancy flats to family flats because of the problem of people constantly knocking on doors demanding drugs. The throughput of single people leaving prison over a period of years meant that the flats were known as places liable to be selling drugs, which often created hassle for people who were neither selling drugs, nor drug users. That is how drug supply works. 
It is a myth that people go in and around schools to build up their network of potential customers. It is a dangerous myth because many parents, including those in my area, believe it is true. They believe that there is a problem in schools, when the problem in schools is small. I shall cite another statistic; the statistics are available from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The number of drug misuse deaths reached its height in 1995. It has gone down since then, and the Government should take some credit for that. It is a problem, but it is a small part of the drugs problem and it is not increasing.

Alistair Carmichael: Both the hon. Members for Bassetlaw and for Chesham and Amersham have provided ample support for my earlier contention about the effectiveness of the clause. I would say to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the behaviour of which she speaks would still be caught under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as they are concerned with supply, which is a much wider application than most of the supply charges.
I am glad that the hon. Lady is not going to die in a ditch over the extent of the places that are listed in the amendment; there are substantial parts of my constituency where young people would love to have the opportunity to avail themselves of skate parks, arcades and bowling alleys, but we shall not dwell on that. 
The hon. Lady does the Committee a service by drawing our attention to the narrow compass of the Bill, as it only applies to schools. She also does us a further service in highlighting the fact that there is no definition given of the term ''vicinity''. The question of what is in the vicinity of the school would lead to a fairly substantial body of case law. It would have been helpful, and I hope that she will consider this before Report, to insert into the clause a subsection to define exactly what the Government have in mind by the use of the term: 
''in the vicinity of a school''.

Caroline Flint: As I said in an earlier debate, the aggravating factor of selling drugs to vulnerable persons already exists, which includes those under 18. Therefore, in some of the circumstances that Members have given as examples, I would suggest that factor is already covered. For example, if someone was dealing on a school bus they would be dealing directly to young people and therefore the aggravated factor would be covered by that area. Similarly in other examples where there is direct dealing to young people they would be covered by that aggravated factor.

Cheryl Gillan: Would they be covered if it was a regular public service bus and not specifically a school bus?

Caroline Flint: I suppose that then we would come to the vicinity argument, which is broader. That is why we are trying to add to the factors to be taken into consideration to protect the young people we want to capture in the provision. Let us be clear; the aggravating factor has to be attached to an offence.  Someone will be arrested for drug dealing or intent to supply drugs. Therefore the aggravating factor will be applied in that context.
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making with her amendment; that young people may be vulnerable in a number of areas. Young people gather in a host of other areas: skate parks; youth clubs; the cinema. We have tried in particular to address safer zones around schools because schools are a place where young people and children are by law obliged to attend. That is why we have a focus on schools. 
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw about the way in which drugs are supplied. As I said, there may be examples of people being bold enough to sell drugs at the school gate, which is why our clause talks about the vicinity rather than just the school gate. I hope he understands that. My hon. Friend made a point about the success of the work that has been carried out; it has led to statistics that clearly indicate a decline in use in some areas. His remarks about cannabis use are interesting because some of the national figures show a decline and we have also seen a decline in the use of ecstasy, which is due to a number of factors. 
More schools are attending in a serious way not just to illegal drugs but also alcohol and cigarettes. Beyond the schools other people have an involvement, so that wherever young people are, there are people to whom they feel they can speak. Having information that is self-accessible, such as ''Frank''—either the website or the phoneline—is also important. I do not think that information and education, if it is the right sort, is a green light to encourage the use of drugs by young people. In that context we need to remember that the majority of young people never use illegal drugs, which is to be welcomed. 
However, we still have to be mindful of those children and young people who are involved in drugs for one reason or another and their vulnerability to becoming involved in drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will know—this issue was explored in the Second Reading debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) made the point appropriately—that for all sorts of reasons, factors such as deprivation and children not thriving at school and instability in home and family life can create a situation so that disproportionately there is more drug dealing and drug-associated activities in some communities than in others. 
We have to acknowledge that factor if we are to tackle and target our attempts to reach those families and help them so that their children do not end up being vulnerable to pressures, whether they are to take drugs or for girls to become involved in early sexual activity and so on. We know from our research on young people who become involved in offending behaviour that often a number of risk factors are present that contribute to the likelihood of their becoming involved in offending behaviour. That is linked to their neighbourhood, their life chances and whether they are able to take life chances and opportunities in the future. 
Ultimately, it will be a matter for the courts to determine, in the light of all the circumstances. The size of the school may be relevant. Unlike in urban, city areas—but probably like in the areas of my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Bassetlaw—a number of schools in my constituency have huge expanses of grounds surrounding them. Indeed, the road and pavement route to one school in my constituency is the longest route for young people to walk, so they often take a particular footpath to get to school. People who want to sell drugs or at least to make contact with young people might think, ''Kids use this footpath as a route to school.'' People who are seen there may be placed under surveillance. Let us remember that they might then be arrested for an offence to which the aggravating factor could be applied. We shall issue guidance in the form of a Home Office circular and we shall consult widely on that. The Crown Prosecution Service will develop its own guidance as well. 
I understand the desire behind the amendment and the point about other areas, but there are probably real practical difficulties in arriving at a comprehensive list of places where young people might congregate and to which the offence might apply. I remind the Committee that there is currently an aggravating factor of dealing to vulnerable young people. If they were at a cinema, a burger bar, a skate park or an arcade—the definition of an arcade was clearly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw—they would, we think, be covered by that factor. We have singled out schools because it is vital that young people can go to a place where they are expected to go by law without being exposed to the risks of drug dealing.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister has referred to arcades, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw did. In my constituency, there was an arcade in the other sense of the word, a place where there were slot machines. Known for drug dealing and drug supply, it attracted schoolchildren in the evenings and a lot of police attention and was eventually closed down. According to that definition, an arcade is exactly the sort of place where drugs would be available.

Caroline Flint: I do not dispute the hon. Lady's example. As a number of other hon. Members have said, it is clear that there are various places in which drugs are supplied or, at least, where people can go to find out where to get them. I understand that. It is one  reason why the Government introduced, through our legislation on antisocial behaviour, greater powers for the police to close down crack houses more quickly than was previously possible. The provisions should be seen in the context of the other powers to tackle problems in other premises that are used in dealing drugs, whether they are commercial or residential, or have become a magnet for drug taking and drug dealing.
Our premise is to examine how we can further protect young people from their vulnerability to being exposed to drug dealing in school areas. The provisions are not contingent on a person being arrested for drug dealing to a young person. If someone is drug dealing to an adult, but in the vicinity of a school, it is important that there is an opportunity, based on the guidelines, for that to be an aggravating factor in the offence. 
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said. I certainly would like to pay tribute to those schools, and others, who work incredibly hard to equip our young people with the right knowledge and the confidence so that, when they are on their own and find themselves in a vulnerable situation, they will know how to handle it. That is the key aim of all our prevention work in that area. I believe that by supporting the clause, we can ensure that we send out a strong message of our intention to protect the most vulnerable.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Minister for her reply. The clause, and the entire Bill, are both about sending out a message. The Minister said that we already have the aggravating factor for dealing to children. Why, therefore, do we need the clause at all? The truth of the matter is that the clause reflects the election timetable rather than being a serious piece of legislation. That is why we are trying to widen and strengthen it.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Lady not agree that the aggravating factor of dealing in the vicinity, which would not necessarily apply to dealing direct to children, but to dealing in areas where children and young people are vulnerable, is important? That is the nature of the clause.

Cheryl Gillan: It is a nice try, but that argument does not wash at all. The Minister knows that I am determined to ensure that measures are taken regarding people who are dealing to children or others, or dealing in the vicinity of a school. The fact that I would like the clause widened shows that I am concerned about vulnerable people and young adults. It is a shame that the Minister could not consider today, or go away and consider, other provisions that could be specifically included in the Bill to ensure that those areas are kept clear of dealers.
The Minister mentioned youth clubs. Youth clubs are the sorts of places that parents send their children to because they know that they are safe and supervised. However, if a dealer is in and around and making contact, that is a doubly heinous crime, because youth clubs are places like schools where one thinks one's  children are safe, or where children should be safe. I therefore cannot understand the Minister's resistance to going back to the Department and considering widening the scope of the clause. 
I am disappointed, in some ways, to hear that, yet again, the House of Commons and the Committee will not have the benefit of full and better particulars on the legislation. The Minister will issue guidance, and there will be a Home Office circular, and there will be consultation. The Minister said that she will be consulting widely. It would have been nice for that consultation to have happened before now. We should have had lengthy and detailed consultation about the provisions, to which we could all have had input. It is a shame that this issue is being used as a political platform when it should not be. It should concern us all, irrespective of our politics. However, the consultation will once again take place after the legislation and the CPS guidance are in place. 
I am disappointed that the Minister is obviously resisting the amendment. She is even resisting the spirit of the amendment and is not willing to go away and think about it. I am pleased that she attempted to define vicinity. She defined it as cafes, apartments or houses near a school. What about club houses on playing fields that perhaps belong to the school but are not attached to it in any way? I want to explore this when we come to amendment No. 2. She needs to think about how vicinity of a school will be defined. Quite honestly, a clever defence lawyer will argue that half a mile down the road is no longer within the vicinity of the school even though that is a route that children take to it. 
 I hope that on Report the Minister can put some more flesh on the bones and not leave it again to a process that is outwith the Committee and the House. That is becoming patently obvious as we get into the details and entrails of clause 1. There are some important issues. We will think about how we frame our amendments on Report in the light of all our discussions. I shall invite my friends to vote on amendment No. 1 because I would like to show how strongly the Opposition feel that we should try to identify more premises where children could be vulnerable to this type of dealing and ensure that they are caught by the clause. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out 'at a relevant time' and insert 'at any time'.

Michael Martin: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (5).

Cheryl Gillan: I am afraid, Mr. Gale, that you and the rest of the Committee will get sick of the sound of my voice.
These amendments relate to subsection (3) of new subsection 4A, which is further qualified by subsection (5). The subsection that we have just been discussing has a further descriptor on it in so far as the first condition is that the offence was committed in the vicinity of the school at a relevant time. The current wording of the Bill seeks to limit the time frame in which the conditions for aggravation apply not simply to the vicinity but to the purposes to which the building is being put and the time at which the building is in use. 
Subsection (5) defines the relevant time as 
''any time when a school is in use by persons under the age of 18'', 
''one hour before the start and one hour after the end of any such time.'' 
The Minister does not seem to be entirely at ease with the provision. She wants to send out a clear message about schools and put it at the front of the Bill; indeed, it is so important, it is the first clause of the Bill. I agree with her, but she seems to be rowing back at every stage and watering down the provision more and more. 
This subsection, which qualifies that the school has to be in use by people under 18 and that the dealing has to be perpetrated either an hour before or after the school has been used by people under 18, gives the dealer an easy exit route and ignores the realities of drug dealing. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I am referring to the Minister's view that there is dealing in and around schools. I keep seeing his face and it is clear that he does not agree and it worries him deeply. However, if it does take place, to add these further provisos is absolutely ridiculous, and I ask the Minister to consider deleting the subsection altogether. If a dealer arranges a meeting at a school late at night, he will not be subject to the provision of  the clause. If he has a meeting with a child in the playing fields or the vicinity of the school early in the morning, say at 7 am, when only adults are around before the children have come into school, he will also escape the provision. 
When we discuss the next pair of amendments, we will see another loophole and over-qualification of the offence. I do not understand why, having included this general provision in the Bill, the Minister is trying to restrict the application of it. What evidence does she have that setting such parameters will have any effect at all? Does she expect a large number of offenders to come under this provision? Does she have evidence that setting the parameters is sufficient to deter or affect any dealing activity, or that dealing in and around schools takes place only within an hour at either end of when a school is used by under-18s? 
What if, as often happens, evening classes take place at a school? Any dealer plying his trade on school premises while adult classes are conducted in the school would escape the provisions, as the users of the school premises would be over 18. I fail to see the logic or sense of including qualifying times and ages, and I ask the Minister to delete them from the new section or give me the evidence base on which she is relying to show that these parameters are absolutely necessary. 
It appears that the Minister is cutting off her nose to spite her face and, to use yet another phrase, tying at least one of her hands behind her back. She ought to float free and allow the more general provision to bite, rather than restricting it unnecessarily.

Caroline Flint: The purpose of the provision relating to ''in the vicinity of a school'' is to protect young people under 18. That is why the new section not only takes into account school hours—whether they are 9 pm to 4 pm, or 9pm to 3.30 pm—but also recognises that a lot of activities in schools involving under-18s occur later in the evening and also in the school holidays. The premise of the clause is to protect young people when they are in the school either during the normal school day or at other times as well.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.